forgetDelete a previously stored memory by key. Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "key": "user_research_topic"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description adds contextual detail about what kind of data is affected ('previously stored memory') and why you would delete it ('clear sensitive data'). This adds value beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences: first states the action, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (1 parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers purpose, usage context, and relationship to siblings. No additional information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'key' parameter. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'previously stored memory by key'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall', which are for storing and retrieving memories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. Also suggests pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', giving context about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The RDAP tools (domain, ip, asn, nameserver, entity) are distinct, but the larger Pipeworx collection creates significant overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates, and the polymarket_* family (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) has heavily overlapping purposes. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap.
Most tools use snake_case with a descriptive verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, recent_changes), but the set mixes short single nouns (domain, ip, asn, entity) with compound names, and there are oddities like generate_llms_txt and ask_pipeworx_grounded that deviate from a clear uniform convention.
At 36 tools, the server is far heavier than expected for an RDAP service. The RDAP core only needs ~5 tools; the rest are an unrelated Pipeworx mega-suite (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback) that makes the server feel like a dumping ground rather than a focused toolset.
For the RDAP portion, coverage is complete: domain, IP, ASN, nameserver, and entity records are all present. The broader Pipeworx features also cover their own workflows (query, research, comparison, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle), but the server's stated RDAP identity is muddied by these extras, and some integration points (e.g., no direct update for RDAP data, which is read-only anyway) are inherent limitations.